Why are we even debating Syrian refugees when.....

[jmdrake]

We now have proof that the U.S. government was behind the rise of ISIS? Seriously. For years and years after 9/11 despite mounting evidence that something was fubar about what the government did/did not do to stop it (one of the few good things Trump has done is finally injected into the national consciousness that at the very least Bush could have stopped 9/11 but didn't), but folks don't want to face the truth without "smoking gun evidence." Well on Syria we have "smoking gun evidence." As Ben Swan has now disclosed, there are Pentagon documents that show that the Pentagon knew that radical jihadists were leading the charge in Syria and insisted on arming and training the rebels anyway in the hope that a jihadist state would emerge in Syria to help topple Assad. No these radical jihadists that the Pentagon knew about did not use the name "ISIS", but that's who they were.

Folks, last time I checked the U.S. constitution still defined treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Last time I checked groups like Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States. Last time I checked Bashir Al Assad has never attacked or threatened to attack the United States or any of its legitimate allies. (I qualify allies with "legitimate" because apparently Al Qaeda and related groups in Syria are now kinda sorta "allies" in the United States. Even the so called "moderate" non ISIS faction includes a branch of Al Qaeda.)

Here is the point. Without the U.S. policy of regime change in Syria there would be no Syrian refugee crisis! Rather than having stupid arguments amongst ourselves about whether the governors have a right to keep refugees out of their particular state or whether we should check refugees to see if they are Christian or not or even, and some sickening Trump supporters are saying, if we should have ID cards that state your religion on them (and you are a total idiot if you think this will stop just with Muslims or even with religion), WE SHOULD BE PUTTING ON A FULL COURT PRESS TO MAKE SURE THE REST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THEIR MEDIA IS COMMITTING TREASON BY CONTINUING TO SUPPORT A POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA! Yes. The media is guilty too. The media should be screaming at the top of their lungs WE DON'T CARE HOW MUCH OF A SCUM ASSAD IS! HE HAS NOT ATTACKED OR THREATENED TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! SOME OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO TOPPLE HIM HAVE ATTACKED AND CONTINUE TO THREATEN TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! THE POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA IS TREASON!

So, in this thread I'm open to ideas on how we finally push back against the traitors who have taken control of the levers of power in the media and in both parties and would sacrifice Christians in the middle east and freedom back here in the United States. Deal with this issue and the Syrian "immigration crisis" goes away. Deal with this issue and all of a sudden Marco Rubio loses a $1 trillion talking point. Deal with this issue and the Paris attacks become a bloody footnote that can't be used to further erode our liberties because people will finally get what causes terrorism. It's not "blowback" people. It's windup! Calling it blowback makes people think "We're just trying to do good around the world and the terrorists don't understand and the get mad." And of course the gullible American public likes the "feel good" theory that we're doing "good." Windup means that our own Pentagon and intelligence services "wind up" jihadists to set against enemies of the United States, whether it was the Soviet Union under Jimmy Carter or Khaddafi and Assad under Obama. Note that both of these "windups" were started by democrats! Military adventurism is a bi-partisan pastime.

So how do we get the word out? We've got to go beyond the internet. We've got to reach the geezer crowd who still read newspapers and listen to talk radio. Newspaper ads? Radio spots? And yes blogging and twitter and Farcebooking and YouTube will be important. Let's brainstorm this and this actually freaking do something!

[timosman]

Can Rand do something about it? I hope his opposition is not a cover for introducing the global id.

[jmdrake]

Can Rand do something about it?

He could but I think the "Don't shake the boat too much" ninnies that surround him will shout down the idea. He could call for impeachment of Obama based on treason. That would shake things up. Or he could simply start talking openly about these documents and what they mean. Just say "Leaked Pentagon documents show that the Obama administration knew their policy in Syria would lead to the emergence of a jihadist state and that should be the focus of an official investigation."

I hope his opposition is not a cover for introducing the global id.

I'm not following you. His opposition to what?

[Working Poor]

Great post JM bu,t I think people have fallen back asleep again. Try to tell Obama supporters about this and you just at least get a blank stare and at most get some rhetoric blaming Bush. We all know Bush started this terror crap. Obama is still very popular especially among people who voted him in. We could not get Bush or Cheney impeached and I don't hold up much hope that people would pressure their reps to impeach Obama.

The middle east is so complicated that even people who are trying to understand can't make much sense of it. The minions will never believe that America created ISIS because the media has them so hypnotized that nothing short of being bombed would wake them up. What really sucks is if America gets attacked by ISIS that would make it almost impossible for the people to believe that our own government allowed it it just does not compute for the people who believe the government is their savior. If someone brings isis up in conversation I do make sure they hear the words that America created and supports them. But that does not mean they will believe it.

[jmdrake]

Great post JM bu,t I think people have fallen back asleep again. Try to tell Obama supporters about this and you just at least get a blank stare and at most get some rhetoric blaming Bush. We all know Bush started this terror crap. Obama is still very popular especially among people who voted him in. We could not get Bush or Cheney impeached and I don't hold up much hope that people would pressure their reps to impeach Obama.

The middle east is so complicated that even people who are trying to understand can't make much sense of it. The minions will never believe that America created ISIS because the media has them so hypnotized that nothing short of being bombed would wake them up. What really sucks is if America gets attacked by ISIS that would make it almost impossible for the people to believe that our own government allowed it it just does not compute for the people who believe the government is their savior. If someone brings isis up in conversation I do make sure they hear the words that America created and supports them. But that does not mean they will believe it.

Of course we can't actually get Obama impeached simply because there are not enough votes in the senate for that. But that wasn't my point. We need to be calling for impeachment over this. If Rand did that it a debate I guarantee it would be covered. CNN, Fox, MSNBC would be forced to cover it and talk radio heads would be all over it. Yes the media has the country hypnotized but well placed jabs can wake people up at least temporarily at critical junctures. Trump forced the media to re-look at the question of whether Bush had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 and after equivocating the issue at first, CNN came out and said "Well yes. Yes he did."

But ultimately we can't control the media. We can, however, choose where to focus our energy. And much of it is misfocused right now. I'm glad Rand pulled the plug (temporarily anyway) on more welfare payments for Syrian refugees. That's about the extent of the energy the liberty movement needs to focus on that issue.

We've got to find ways around the media. We need a coordinated effort on this one issue, waking the American people up to the fact that ISIS is an American creation. Many on the right are starting to raise the question now. Michael Savage has raised it repeatedly at this point. And frankly I don't care about the Obama supporters. It's the Trump/Rubio/Carson/Cruz supporters we need to reach. The people who can't stand Obama are the ones we need. Yes the idiots who clung to the "birther" issue like it was their last meal need to be turned on to these facts. We need the 9/11 truthers as well. Forget "9/11 was an inside job." That's yesterday's news. ISIS is a Pentagon creation. That's the achilles heel of the NWO. They may have overplayed their hand this time.

[limequat]

Can you post the documents here?

[Ronin Truth]

Can you post the documents here?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/...n-of-isis.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...-version11.pdf

[Contumacious]

Great post JM bu,t I think people have fallen back asleep again. Try to tell Obama supporters about this and you just at least get a blank stare and at most get some rhetoric blaming Bush. We all know Bush started this terror crap. Obama is still very popular especially among people who voted him in. We could not get Bush or Cheney impeached and I don't hold up much hope that people would pressure their reps to impeach Obama.

The middle east is so complicated that even people who are trying to understand can't make much sense of it. The minions will never believe that America created ISIS because the media has them so hypnotized that nothing short of being bombed would wake them up. What really sucks is if America gets attacked by ISIS that would make it almost impossible for the people to believe that our own government allowed it it just does not compute for the people who believe the government is their savior. If someone brings isis up in conversation I do make sure they hear the words that America created and supports them. But that does not mean they will believe it.

That is true.


Americans are zombified, ask professional bureaucrat Jonathan Gruber.

The continuing criminal enterprise known as the United of America wants to empower Israhell and make it a regional power. The scumbags in DC felt that it WAS MORE IMPORTANT to remove Assad and allow Israel to expand. its territory . If there was a blowback then the next president , not Obama, would have to deal with it.


And so it goes.

[fisharmor]

If you bring up that the US created Adolf Hitler - by intervening in WWI and creating a lopsided victory where there was relative stalemate previously, and then by allowing Germany to be repeatedly kicked while it was down - both historically undeniable facts - you get the same blank stares.
And we've had almost a full century of hindsight there.

I'm not real hopeful we can do anything about the same thing happening again as it's unfolding.

[helmuth_hubener]

We now have proof that the U.S. government was behind the rise of ISIS.

Here is the point. Without the U.S. policy of regime change in Syria there would be no Syrian refugee crisis! WE SHOULD BE PUTTING ON A FULL COURT PRESS TO MAKE SURE THE REST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THEIR MEDIA IS COMMITTING TREASON BY CONTINUING TO SUPPORT A POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA!

So how do we get the word out? We've got to go beyond the internet. We've got to reach the geezer crowd who still read newspapers and listen to talk radio. Newspaper ads? Radio spots? And yes blogging and twitter and Farcebooking and YouTube will be important. Let's brainstorm this and this actually freaking do something!

Just so you know, this argument will not be attractive nor persuasive to conservatives. The fact that you're even making this argument will in fact turn them against you entirely. What they will hear:

America is at fault for the actions of these evil murderers.

That goes against their inclination to always put the full responsibility for actions right at the feet of, guess who?: the people who actually did the deed. And that is hardly an unreasonable inclination. It is, in fact, the embodiment of Personal Responsibility, a value that as liberty-lovers we claim to share and hold dear as well.

So, it depends to whom you are trying to reach out. If you are reaching out to left-leaning persons, this will be a very effective argument.

[helmuth_hubener]

If you bring up that the US created Adolf Hitler, you get the same blank stares.

Actually, someone on the left, if they have some time to listen to you and are in the right calm, open frame of mind, will be very susceptible to this point of view. If you are able to tell the story effectively, he will likely be persuaded. Try it on some of your DC buddies, you'll see.

A conservative, on the other hand, will never, ever go for this. To him, it's simple: who's responsible for Hitler? Hitler! Who's responsible for killing Jews, attacking Poland, etc.? Oh yeah: the one who actually did it! The one who actually gave the orders for the killing and attacking to commence. No big mystery.

Now that view may lack subtlety, but resent it all you like, you are not going to change it. And, in many ways: thank goodness for that!

[limequat]

Just so you know, this argument will not be attractive nor persuasive to conservatives. The fact that you're even making this argument will in fact turn them against you entirely. What they will hear:

America is at fault for the actions of these evil murderers.

That goes against their inclination to always put the full responsibility for actions right at the feet of, guess who?: the people who actually did the deed. And that is hardly an unreasonable inclination. It is, in fact, the embodiment of Personal Responsibility, a value that as liberty-lovers we claim to share and hold dear as well.

So, it depends to whom you are trying to reach out. If you are reaching out to left-leaning persons, this will be a very effective argument.

That's why its necessary to couch it in partisan terms. "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria."

[Ronin Truth]

Actually, someone on the left, if they have some time to listen to you and are in the right calm, open frame of mind, will be very susceptible to this point of view. If you are able to tell the story effectively, he will likely be persuaded. Try it on some of your DC buddies, you'll see.

A conservative, on the other hand, will never, ever go for this. To him, it's simple: who's responsible for Hitler? Hitler! Who's responsible for killing Jews, attacking Poland, etc.? Oh yeah: the one who actually did it! The one who actually gave the orders for the killing and attacking to commence. No big mystery.

Now that view may lack subtlety, but resent it all you like, you are not going to change it. And, in many ways: thank goodness for that!

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War [I]. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives." -- Winston Churchill, 1936 interview

//

[helmuth_hubener]

That's why its necessary to couch it in partisan terms. "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria."

Saying "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria, and that was stupid and bad," is acceptable to conservatives. Saying "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria, and that caused the Paris attack, or other terrorist acts," is a complete turn-off. You cannot connect the actions of the US with the actions of the terrorists. You can't say "because we did that, they did this," because that smacks of "because we did that, they had to do this." As if they had no choice. As if they're little children or robots that just respond to us. It would be like saying "because my dad spanked me, I had no choice but to become a mass-murderer." Or "because that woman looked beautiful, I had no choice but to have an affair with her." That kind of, ahem, "reasoning" just doesn't fly with conservatives. Even if you bring Obama into it. They may hate him, but he's still the President of the United States, and they respect the office, and the principle of "don't blame me / my country for the crimes of others" still applies.

[timosman]

I'm not following you. His opposition to what?

He is opposing allowing Syrian et al. to our country no matter what passport they currently use. Asked what about French citizens with Syrian origin he proposes Global ID in order to fast track those we know are "good". Isn't this pushing for Global ID? Everybody who wants to travel unmolested will sign up.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems that France may have had a change of heart on Assad...

-----

October 23, 2015: French President: Assad is Problem, Not Solution in Syria

November 16, 2015: President Francois Holland said that the Islamic State is his country's biggest enemy, not Syrian president Bashar Assad.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems that France may have had a change of heart on Assad...

-----

October 23, 2015: French President: Assad is Problem, Not Solution in Syria

November 16, 2015: President Francois Holland said that the Islamic State is his country's biggest enemy, not Syrian president Bashar Assad.

And in doing a Google search on "Assad problem", the first story, that Assad is the problem in Syria, is by far the most popular "news" (propaganda) story to come back, all the way up until the Paris attack.

[Deborah K]

We now have proof that the U.S. government was behind the rise of ISIS? Seriously. For years and years after 9/11 despite mounting evidence that something was fubar about what the government did/did not do to stop it (one of the few good things Trump has done is finally injected into the national consciousness that at the very least Bush could have stopped 9/11 but didn't), but folks don't want to face the truth without "smoking gun evidence." Well on Syria we have "smoking gun evidence." As Ben Swan has now disclosed, there are Pentagon documents that show that the Pentagon knew that radical jihadists were leading the charge in Syria and insisted on arming and training the rebels anyway in the hope that a jihadist state would emerge in Syria to help topple Assad. No these radical jihadists that the Pentagon knew about did not use the name "ISIS", but that's who they were.

Folks, last time I checked the U.S. constitution still defined treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Last time I checked groups like Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States. Last time I checked Bashir Al Assad has never attacked or threatened to attack the United States or any of its legitimate allies. (I qualify allies with "legitimate" because apparently Al Qaeda and related groups in Syria are now kinda sorta "allies" in the United States. Even the so called "moderate" non ISIS faction includes a branch of Al Qaeda.)

Here is the point. Without the U.S. policy of regime change in Syria there would be no Syrian refugee crisis! Rather than having stupid arguments amongst ourselves about whether the governors have a right to keep refugees out of their particular state or whether we should check refugees to see if they are Christian or not or even, and some sickening Trump supporters are saying, if we should have ID cards that state your religion on them (and you are a total idiot if you think this will stop just with Muslims or even with religion), WE SHOULD BE PUTTING ON A FULL COURT PRESS TO MAKE SURE THE REST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THEIR MEDIA IS COMMITTING TREASON BY CONTINUING TO SUPPORT A POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA! Yes. The media is guilty too. The media should be screaming at the top of their lungs WE DON'T CARE HOW MUCH OF A SCUM ASSAD IS! HE HAS NOT ATTACKED OR THREATENED TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! SOME OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO TOPPLE HIM HAVE ATTACKED AND CONTINUE TO THREATEN TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! THE POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA IS TREASON!

So, in this thread I'm open to ideas on how we finally push back against the traitors who have taken control of the levers of power in the media and in both parties and would sacrifice Christians in the middle east and freedom back here in the United States. Deal with this issue and the Syrian "immigration crisis" goes away. Deal with this issue and all of a sudden Marco Rubio loses a $1 trillion talking point. Deal with this issue and the Paris attacks become a bloody footnote that can't be used to further erode our liberties because people will finally get what causes terrorism. It's not "blowback" people. It's windup! Calling it blowback makes people think "We're just trying to do good around the world and the terrorists don't understand and the get mad." And of course the gullible American public likes the "feel good" theory that we're doing "good." Windup means that our own Pentagon and intelligence services "wind up" jihadists to set against enemies of the United States, whether it was the Soviet Union under Jimmy Carter or Khaddafi and Assad under Obama. Note that both of these "windups" were started by democrats! Military adventurism is a bi-partisan pastime.

So how do we get the word out? We've got to go beyond the internet. We've got to reach the geezer crowd who still read newspapers and listen to talk radio. Newspaper ads? Radio spots? And yes blogging and twitter and Farcebooking and YouTube will be important. Let's brainstorm this and this actually freaking do something!

Great post.

I think it's going to take a multi-pronged approach. The 'forced admittance of refugees' train has already left the station, so that issue - like it or not - HAS to be addressed. There's no reason why multiple issues can't be solved simultaneously.

As to the radio spots and newspaper ads; I don't think that will work. We need gov't infiltrators. And willing, reputable journalists who will do an exposé. Ben Swann might be a good connect since he's already exposed this. I hate to say it, but Glenn Beck might be a candidate for this since his views on foreign policy have done a virtual 180 in recent years. He has a HUGE following, still. Tucker Carlson is another one; though he may be cowardly when it comes to sticking his neck out, it's clear to me he still sees things from a more libertarian perspective than most. Judge Nap is another one. If we could collectively appeal to these various potential resources in the media, we might have an impact.

In the meantime, I still believe we need to back the Governors up who reject Obama's plan to admit refugees. While I agree that our meddling, imperialist gov't caused this in the first place, and that the humane thing to do is help these people who have become the 'collateral damage'; I'm not okay with paying for it, or overburdening the systems we have in place, or taking the risk that crazy $#@!s from Syria come along as part of the package. If individuals, or Churches, or private organizations want to handle it, then fine. Let them absorb the risk along with all of you who want the refugees.

[fisharmor]

Saying "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria, and that was stupid and bad," is acceptable to conservatives. Saying "Obama funded al-Qaeda in Syria, and that caused the Paris attack, or other terrorist acts," is a complete turn-off. You cannot connect the actions of the US with the actions of the terrorists. You can't say "because we did that, they did this," because that smacks of "because we did that, they had to do this." As if they had no choice. As if they're little children or robots that just respond to us. It would be like saying "because my dad spanked me, I had no choice but to become a mass-murderer." Or "because that woman looked beautiful, I had no choice but to have an affair with her." That kind of, ahem, "reasoning" just doesn't fly with conservatives. Even if you bring Obama into it. They may hate him, but he's still the President of the United States, and they respect the office, and the principle of "don't blame me / my country for the crimes of others" still applies.

Do you remember when Pope Francis said that we shouldn't have freedom of speech, and that anyone who insults his mother is going to get punched in the face?

The internet remembers. Only.... That is not even remotely what he said.
But I've been looking for five minutes and I cannot even find the full quote anywhere. Just the spin on it that says he hates free speech and is now dishing out right hooks.

The full context of what he actually said, is that if you exercise your freedom of speech to the point where you are insulting people's mothers, you cannot act surprised if you get punched in the face sometimes.

So is that OK that everyone is to this day misreporting what he said and turning it into something he quite obviously (for those of us who watched the video he was in) did not intend to say?

There is a direct parallel here. People just run forward assuming the pope is saying something, they're not fact-checking, they're not trying to understand context, and as a result he is considered the most buffoonish world leader out there right now.
People just run forward assuming certain things about "terrorists", they're not fact-checking, they're not trying to understand context, and as a result the fact that what they're doing is not happening in a vacuum is soaring over their heads.

I'm open to suggestions as to how to get them up to speed to the fact that America absolutely does bear some responsibility for what's going on - not that America did it but that it created the situation. But I'm not giving up on trying to get that point across altogether like you seem to be suggesting. Because this has been going on for generations, it's not right, and damnit, it needs to stop.

[Deborah K]

Do you remember when Pope Francis said that we shouldn't have freedom of speech, and that anyone who insults his mother is going to get punched in the face?

The internet remembers. Only.... That is not even remotely what he said.
But I've been looking for five minutes and I cannot even find the full quote anywhere. Just the spin on it that says he hates free speech and is now dishing out right hooks.

The full context of what he actually said, is that if you exercise your freedom of speech to the point where you are insulting people's mothers, you cannot act surprised if you get punched in the face sometimes.

So is that OK that everyone is to this day misreporting what he said and turning it into something he quite obviously (for those of us who watched the video he was in) did not intend to say?

There is a direct parallel here. People just run forward assuming the pope is saying something, they're not fact-checking, they're not trying to understand context, and as a result he is considered the most buffoonish world leader out there right now.
People just run forward assuming certain things about "terrorists", they're not fact-checking, they're not trying to understand context, and as a result the fact that what they're doing is not happening in a vacuum is soaring over their heads.

I'm open to suggestions as to how to get them up to speed to the fact that America absolutely does bear some responsibility for what's going on - not that America did it but that it created the situation. But I'm not giving up on trying to get that point across altogether like you seem to be suggesting. Because this has been going on for generations, it's not right, and damnit, it needs to stop.

An attorney once told me that people seem to have an inherent resistance to accepting responsibility. I would venture that nations of people do too. That, unfortunately, is what we have to work with. I get where you're going with this - you want American society to accept the fact that their gov't is responsible for what is happening, and I agree. But I think we're going to have to finesse how we get this across, and do it with subtlety. Not sure how to go about that though.

[phill4paul]

Boobus doesn't want the truth. They will not listen to it, they will not believe it if heard.

[Deborah K]

Boobus doesn't want the truth. They will not listen to it, they will not believe it if heard.

Who's running the show, though? Is it boobus? I don't think so, they're sheep. We just have to herd boobus; but we have to find the right Shepherds to do it. That's why I suggested certain possibilities within the media.

[phill4paul]

Who's running the show, though? Is it boobus? I don't think so, they're sheep. We just have to herd boobus; but we have to find the right Shepherds to do it. That's why I suggested certain possibilities within the media.

I think you hit it on the head with your analogy about not accepting responsibility. I've posted the Swann video. Most responses sound like Hillary "What does it matter?" Boobus still refuses to look past the official narrative of 9/11. I have no faith that they can be herded anywhere except the slaughter.

[helmuth_hubener]

But I'm not giving up on trying to get that point across altogether like you seem to be suggesting.

Well, I guess it depends on whether your end goal is getting points across, or is simply stopping wars.

My goal is to stop these endless, senseless wars. Getting the point across that you want to get across is an impossible goal. To conservatives, that is. As I say, more liberal-inclined people will be quite open to considering it. They have a much lower (or even non-existent) in-group preference. Run it by all your immigrant friends in the office -- you will totally be able to convince them. I have pure confidence in you.

Conservatives, though, are never going to "get your point" that America created Hitler. They are never going to "get it" that America is responsible for provoking the Pearl Harbor attack. They are never going to "get it" that America is responsible for senseless and evil terrorist attacks, because of blah blah blah, whatever, any reason. That's all it is, that's all they hear: blah, blah, blah. Blame America First. It's the victim's own fault that the criminal attacked him because blah blah blah.

It's an argument you'll never win. It just makes you look like a limp-wristed, self-hating, victim-blaming wimp.

There are other very different anti-war arguments to use on conservatives. Such as, why spread ourselves too thin all over on these foreign wars (stronger security)? Why should we pay for their defense (anti-handout)? Let's focus on fortifying and strengthening security in America, and let these crazy stupid idiots kill each other if they want to (nativism).

[PierzStyx]

//

There is dispute surrounding the legitimacy of the quote. (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-churchill.html) But it is still a fantastic point to think about.

[PierzStyx]

Well, I guess it depends on whether your end goal is getting points across, or is simply stopping wars.

My goal is to stop these endless, senseless wars. Getting the point across that you want to get across is an impossible goal. To conservatives, that is. As I say, more liberal-inclined people will be quite open to considering it. They have a much lower (or even non-existent) in-group preference. Run it by all your immigrant friends in the office -- you will totally be able to convince them. I have pure confidence in you.

Conservatives, though, are never going to "get your point" that America created Hitler. They are never going to "get it" that America is responsible for provoking the Pearl Harbor attack. They are never going to "get it" that America is responsible for senseless and evil terrorist attacks, because of blah blah blah, whatever, any reason. That's all it is, that's all they hear: blah, blah, blah. Blame America First. It's the victim's own fault that the criminal attacked him because blah blah blah.

It's an argument you'll never win. It just makes you look like a limp-wristed, self-hating, victim-blaming wimp.

There are other very different anti-war arguments to use on conservatives. Such as, why spread ourselves too thin all over on these foreign wars (stronger security)? Why should we pay for their defense (anti-handout)? Let's focus on fortifying and strengthening security in America, and let these crazy stupid idiots kill each other if they want to (nativism).

You make very valid points. But I suppose it is part of my inborn idealism to think that education, ideas, can change the way they think, so I don't have to appeal to their prejudices.

[helmuth_hubener]

You make very valid points. But I suppose it is part of my inborn idealism to think that education, ideas, can change the way they think, so I don't have to appeal to their prejudices.

We all have our own prejudices. I have my own prejudices. Yes, even you have your own prejudices, believe it or not (as of now, you don't believe it, but maybe someday). To realize this, is the difference of being in the maze and looking at the maze from above.

[Ronin Truth]

There is dispute surrounding the legitimacy of the quote. (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-churchill.html) But it is still a fantastic point to think about.

I'm not particularly swayed by the existence of disputes. Show me the convincing evidence.

[timosman]

Do you remember when Pope Francis said that we shouldn't have freedom of speech, and that anyone who insults his mother is going to get punched in the face?

The full context of what he actually said, is that if you exercise your freedom of speech to the point where you are insulting people's mothers, you cannot act surprised if you get punched in the face sometimes.

Getting punched in the face qualifies as an assault. There are penalties for that no matter what you've heard somebody was saying.

[Deborah K]

I think you hit it on the head with your analogy about not accepting responsibility. I've posted the Swann video. Most responses sound like Hillary "What does it matter?" Boobus still refuses to look past the official narrative of 9/11. I have no faith that they can be herded anywhere except the slaughter.

That may be their fate, I don't know. Do they drive this train? Does it matter what they think? Does a paradigm shift require them? I mean that's what we're talking about here right? How do we go about effecting a paradigm shift?